1. Prior Art Capability and Motivations, as Helping to Show Patentability Here
Even in hindsight consideration of the present invention to determine its inventive and novel nature, it is not only conceded but emphasized that the prior art had many details usable in this invention, but only if the prior art had had the guidance of the present invention, details of both capability and motivation.
That is, it is emphasized that the prior art had/or knew several particulars which individually and accumulatively show the non-obviousness of this combination invention. E.g.,                a) The cost of the materials are relatively low and do not have a profound impact on price to the point of offsetting the benefits of this novel product;        b) The nature of an invention as being a “novel combination”, in spite of existence of details separately, is especially significant here where the novelty is of the plurality of concepts, i.e., the use of an existing bicycle frame and the use of an existing snowboard;        c) The addition of providing a stopper and double spring system to limit rotational mobility of the front part of the snowboard in addition to keeping it level especially when in mid-air and a stabilizer on the rear snowboard to eliminate torsion;        d) The matter of particular cost-factors, in a detailed form which would surely convey the realization of the huge cost benefits involved in manufacturing such a device;        e) The cost-factors involved in the maintenance repair etc since the parts are readily available hardware components;        f) The ease of tooling for the present invention has surely given manufacturers ample incentive to have made modifications for commercial competitiveness in a competitive industry, if the concepts had been obvious;        g) The prior art has always had sufficient skill to make many types of the stuff we're talking about, more than ample skill to have achieved the present invention, but only if the concepts and their combinations had been conceived;        h) Substantially all of the operational characteristics and advantages of details of the present invention, when considered separately from one another and when considered separately from the present invention's details and accomplishment of the details, are within the skill of persons of various arts, but only when considered away from the integrated and novel combination of concepts which by their cooperative combination achieve this advantageous invention;        i) The details of the present invention, when considered solely from the standpoint of construction, are exceedingly simple, basically a bicycle frame and a snowboard cut in two halves and the matter of simplicity of construction has long been recognized as indicative of inventive creativity;        j) Similarly, and a long-recognized indication of inventiveness of a novel combination, is the realistic principle that a person of ordinary skill in the art, as illustrated with respect to the claimed combination as differing in the stated respects from the prior art both as to construction and concept, is presumed to be one who thinks along the line of conventional wisdom in the art and is not one who undertakes to innovate; and        k) The predictable benefits from a novel way of making a snow bike having the features of this invention would seem sufficiently high that others would have been working on this type of product, but only if the concepts which it presents had been conceived.        
Accordingly, although the prior art has had capability and motivation, amply sufficient to presumably give incentive to the development a snow bike according to the present invention, the fact remains that this invention awaited the creativity and inventive discovery of the present inventor. In spite of ample motivation, the prior art did not suggest this invention.
2. Prior Art as Particular Instances of Failure to Provide this Novel Product and Installation Method
In view of the general economic advantages, of the present invention as an improved embodiment of the prior art, it may be difficult to realize that the prior art has not conceived of the combination purpose and achievement of the present invention, even though the need for it is a known requested commodity for people nowadays who want to have a way of leveraging the use of their bicycle by adapting it to a winter activity. Surely the need for a safe and secure snow bike being able to reproduce on snow the type of acrobatics feasible in a BMX bike has been known for decades and the technology to achieve such results has been known for years and that the various combination provided in this invention would have been desired and attempted long ago, but only if its factors and combination-nature had been obvious.
Other considerations, as herein mentioned, when realistically evaluated show the inventive nature of the present invention, a change in concept which the prior patent and other prior art did not achieve.